By Olivia Murray
The National Health Service (NHS) is the umbrella term for the gargantuan socialized medicine institution of the United Kingdom—in fact, it apparently holds the title for “the largest single-payer, single-provider health care system in the world.”
In that context, you should be completely unsurprised to learn that medical staff at an NHS hospital petitioned the judicial system to greenlight the “removal of life-saving medical treatment from a 19-year-old young woman identified only as “ST” which would, in effect, be a death sentence; ST needs routine dialysis and other intensive remedies, but she is completely cognizant, of sound mind, and wants to live.
From a report published just two weeks ago:
‘ST’ … has instructed her own lawyers to argue that she should be kept alive and allowed to go to Canada for experimental treatment which would give her a chance of survival.
…
The hospital argues that while ST’s prognosis is uncertain and she may survive for some months, her condition is deteriorating and she is therefore ‘actively dying.’ The NHS trust has asked the court to approve a ‘palliative care plan’ for ST would mean she is no longer given dialysis and would die from kidney failure within a few days.
Two psychiatric experts instructed by the hospital have examined ST and have told the court that she is not suffering from any mental health illness and has the mental capacity to make decisions about her own medical treatment.
The court ruled, and agreed with the NHS; the judge found that NHS staff “have met with a fundamental obstacle” which is ST’s “apparent refusal or inability to accept that her disease will result in her early, if not imminent, death.” The court record also details that this “inability” to accept death amounts to a “delusion” and therefore, ST is rendered “incapacitous to make decisions for herself.”
Although I’m fairly certain it’s out of print, a 1981 book titled abortion: the SILENT HOLOCAUST is a great resource to understand the political and cultural context of Germany in the 1930s, and what factors created an environment that saw the Third Reich establish its infamous “killing centers.”
(There are deeply disturbing allegations of the sexual abuse of children against the now-deceased author, but the information he presents is still concrete and sourced.)
The author includes the testimony of a Sister Rutilia, who once helped care for disabled children, before the German “soldiers” came and took them away to be executed, for they “were only an expense, a burden.” From the text:
She [Rutilia] explained that in the early 1930s, a determined group of opinion makers in Germany propagandized a new ethic, the pragmatic morality of Hegel, the German philosopher.
…
‘Even before Hitler came into power, this philosophy was heavily propagandized and generally accepted in Germany. The educational and judicial systems began to lean in this direction. When Hitler could no longer be successfully or openly opposed, he set up the “killing centers.” He ordered the deaths of the insane, the aged in state homes, the retarded, and the deformed. THeir crime was that they could not contribute. They were a burden and an expense. They were not wanted, and because they were not wanted—they were killed.’
(Hegel’s philosophy can be summed up as the old “the ends justify the means” aphorism.)
The author also writes:
Medical science in Nazi Germany willingly collaborated. Many doctors who had taken a Hippocratic oath to preserve life became the social executioners of the Third Reich.
…
By an order from Hitler on September 1, 1939, questionnaires were filled out on all patients in state institutions. Which patients were to be killed was determined by a board of doctors, most of whom were professors of psychiatry in key German universities. These doctors processed more than one thousand questionnaires a week and stamped most of them: ‘Death!’
…
These questionnaires, which became the prescriptions for death for so many of the sick and disabled, were conducted and collected by the ‘Realm’s Work Committee of Institutions for Cure and Care.’
From a 1979 publication titled Whatever Happened to the Human Race? we find this line: “Physicians took part in this planning on matters of life and death to save society’s money.”
Now, back to 2023:
‘ST has wanted to tell her story to the world in order to try and access further treatment but has been prevented from doing so by the ironically named Court of Protection.’
At what point can we just all accept that ST’s experience is exactly the outcome sought by the puppet masters behind socialized medicine? Can we finally admit that every time socialized medicine ends in eugenics and state-sponsored murder it wasn’t because things went awry, but rather because it all went perfectly according to plan? The disingenuousness is a figurative, and literal killer.